State of Iowa
v.
Lawrence Eugene Walker

Defendant appealed from the district court judgment and sentence entered on his convictions for second-degree sexual abuse and lascivious acts with a child. He contended the district court erred by excluding evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412 (the rape shield law) and by allowing hearsay testimony from a doctor that did not fall within the exceptions for medical diagnosis and treatment. He also contended his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to similar hearsay testimony from a nurse. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and preserved the ineffective-assistance claim for possible postconviction relief. Defendant seeks further review.

Supreme Court Opinion

Opinion Number:

Date Published:

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:

Date Published:

Summary

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (15 pages)

Lawrence Walker appeals from his convictions for sexual abuse in the second degree and lascivious acts with a child. He maintains the district court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence under the rape-shield law. Additionally, he maintains the court erred in allowing the doctor to testify to hearsay that did not fall within the exception for statements for medical diagnosis and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object when a nurse testified to similar improper hearsay testimony. OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence based on the rape-shield law. Additionally, the court did not err in admitting Dr. Harre’s testimony about E.W.’s statements pursuant to a hearsay exception. We affirm Walker’s convictions. We preserve his claim of ineffective assistance for possible postconviction relief.